alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 11.1


                               META GROUP, INC.

                      EXHIBIT TO ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

                    Computation of Net Income Per Common Share


<TABLE>

                                                       Year Ended              Year Ended            Year Ended
                                                    December 31, 1999      December 31, 1998      December 31, 1997
                                                    -----------------      -----------------      ------------------
<C>                                                 <S>                    <S>                     <S>
Net Income.....................................       $ 9,230,000            $ 8,785,000            $ 5,767,000
                                                    =================       ================       =================

Weighted average number of common and common
  equivalent shares outstanding:

    Average number of common shares
      outstanding during the year .............        10,719,094             11,326,228             10,821,648

    Add common share equivalents -- options
      to purchase common shares...............           781,598              1,269,986              1,114,738
                                                    -----------------      -----------------      ------------------
                                                       11,500,692             12,596,214             11,936,386
                                                    =================      =================      ==================

Net income per diluted common share                   $          .80         $          .70         $           .48
                                                    =================       ================      ==================

Net income per basic common share                     $          .86         $          .78         $           .53
                                                    =================       ================      ==================

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-11065

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIGUEL ANGEL ARIZPE-RIOS, also known as Angel Rios-Fuentes, also known

as Angel Rios-Fuente,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CR-48-2

Before WIENER, PRADO and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Miguel Angel Arizpe-Rios pleaded guilty to one count of possession with

intent to distribute more than 500 grams of a mixture containing cocaine and

was sentenced to 84 months in prison to be followed by 5 years of supervised

release. Arizpe-Rios challenges this sentence on appeal. He argues that the

district court erred by denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility based

on his denial of previous involvement in drug trafficking.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 16, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-11065 Document: 00511204103 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2010
No. 09-11065

A defendant may receive a two-level reduction in offense level pursuant

to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 if he “clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for

his offense.” § 3E1.1(a). A reduction for acceptance of responsibility requires,

inter alia, “a showing of sincere contrition on the defendant’s behalf.” United

States v. Medina-Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638, 648 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted). In evaluating a defendant’s sincerity, a sentencing

court “may consider a defendant’s refusal to elaborate on the circumstances

surrounding his offense to the probation officer.” Id. The defendant bears the

burden of demonstrating that the reduction is warranted. United States v.

Flucas, 99 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 1996). This court “will affirm a sentencing

court’s decision not to award a reduction . . . unless it is without foundation, a

standard of review more deferential than the clearly erroneous standard.”

United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted).

The district court did not err in denying credit for acceptance of

responsibility because the finding that Arizpe-Rios had lied regarding his prior

involvement with drug trafficking activity was not without foundation. ArizpeRios admitted that his family in Mexico was the source of the approximately

three kilograms of cocaine, that he was to negotiate a price for the cocaine, and

that he paid $24,000 per kilogram for the cocaine. These facts are not consistent

with his statement that this drug offense was his first. Given the deference

owed to a district court’s findings on acceptance of responsibility, Arizpe-Rios

has not shown that the denial of the reduction was without foundation. See

Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d at 211.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 09-11065 Document: 00511204103 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2010
<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT 21.2

                  Subsidiaries and Joint Ventures of Registrant
             TB Wood's Corporation, Subsidiaries, and Joint Ventures
                                December 29, 2000

Registrant:    TB Wood's Corporation
               Delaware

       Subsidiary:     TB Wood's Incorporated
                       Pennsylvania
                  Subsidiaries:      Plant Engineering Consultants, Incorporated
                                     Tennessee

                                     T. B. Wood's Canada Ltd.
                                     Canada

                                     TB Wood's Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
                                     Mexico

                                     Berges electronic GmbH
                                     Germany

                                     Berges electronic, S.r.l.
                                     Italy

                                     TB Wood's (Deutschland) GmbH
                                     Germany

                                     TB Wood's Foreign Investment Company
                                     Delaware

                                     TB Wood's Foreign Sales Corporation
                                     Delaware
                  Joint Ventures

                                     TB Wood's (India) Private Ltd.
                                     India

                                     TBWE Belt Drive Components LP
                                     Pennsylvania

                                     TBWE Belt Drive Systems LLC
                                     Pennsylvania




                                       53
Order entered March 14, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00221-CR

No. 05-13-00222-CR

No. 05-13-00240-CR

VICTOR JOEL SUAREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F09-41419-K, F06-45426-K, F06-45427-K

ORDER

The Court GRANTS appellant’s March 12, 2014 motion to supplement the clerk’s 

records. We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the 

date of this order, supplemental clerk’s records containing the following documents: (1) the 

Ominbus Pretrial Motion; (2) the Request for Notice of Extraneous Offenses; and (3) the Motion 

Restricting Prosecutor’s Nomenclature.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
exv10w1






Exhibit 10.1




Non-Employee Director Compensation




	 	 	 	 	 
	Component of Pay	 	Amount	 
	 
	Board Retainer
	 	$	100,000	 
	Audit Committee Retainer
	 	$	10,000	 
	Audit Committee Chair Retainer
	 	$	20,000	 
	Compensation Committee Chair Retainer
	 	$	10,000	 
	Governance Committee Chair Retainer
	 	$	10,000	 
	Policy Committee Chair Retainer
	 	$	7,500	 
	Non-Executive Chairman Retainer
	 	$	250,000	 
	Amount deferred to Stock Units
	 	$	120,000
#### Patricia DAVIS-JACKSON, Appellant, v. Jeff FEDERICCI, Owner of Bucaneer Properties; Diana Ritter, Resident Manager, Village Square Apts., Appellees.

No. 07-3618.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2008.

Filed: Jan. 9, 2009.

Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Patricia Davis-Jackson appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her pro se action alleging housing discrimination. After careful de novo review, *see Ramlet v. E.F. Johnson Co.,*507 F.3d 1149, 1152 (8th Cir.2007) (standard of review), we modify the judgment to be without prejudice as to any state-law claim Davis-Jackson was asserting in her complaint, *cf. Labickas v. Ark. State Univ.,*78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (following dismissal of federal claims, district court may dismiss state-law claims without prejudice), and we affirm the judgment as modified, *see*8th Cir. R. 47B. Appellees’ pending motion is denied.

1

. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Sr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, now retired.
S. Con. Res. 50 Agreed to December 5, 2012

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twelve 

Concurrent Resolution 

Whereas given the importance of the Internet to the global economy, 

it is essential that the Internet remain stable, secure, and free 

from government control; 

Whereas the world deserves the access to knowledge, services, 

commerce, and communication, the accompanying benefits to economic development, education, and health care, and the informed 

discussion that is the bedrock of democratic self-government that 

the Internet provides; 

Whereas the structure of Internet governance has profound implications for competition and trade, democratization, free expression, 

and access to information; 

Whereas countries have obligations to protect human rights, which 

are advanced by online activity as well as offline activity; 

Whereas the ability to innovate, develop technical capacity, grasp 

economic opportunities, and promote freedom of expression online 

is best realized in cooperation with all stakeholders; 

Whereas proposals have been put forward for consideration at the 

2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications that 

would fundamentally alter the governance and operation of the 

Internet; 

Whereas the proposals, in international bodies such as the United 

Nations General Assembly, the United Nations Commission on 

Science and Technology for Development, and the International 

Telecommunication Union, would attempt to justify increased 

government control over the Internet and would undermine the 

current multistakeholder model that has enabled the Internet 

to flourish and under which the private sector, civil society, 

academia, and individual users play an important role in charting 

its direction; 

Whereas the proposals would diminish the freedom of expression 

on the Internet in favor of government control over content; 

Whereas the position of the United States Government has been 

and is to advocate for the flow of information free from government control; and 

Whereas this and past Administrations have made a strong commitment to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance and 

the promotion of the global benefits of the Internet: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of State, 
S. Con. Res. 50—2 

in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, should continue 

working to implement the position of the United States on Internet 

governance that clearly articulates the consistent and unequivocal 

policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from 

government control and preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet today. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
# C_2020061EN.01004001.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/40

---

Order of the General Court of 18 December 2019 — Nowhere v EUIPO — Junguo Ye (APE TEES)

(Case T-12/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 61/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nowhere Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japon) (represented by: A. Norris, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Sipos and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Junguo Ye (Elche, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2018 (Case R 2474/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Nowhere and Mr Ye.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.

---
# C_2021278EN.01004102.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Franz Schröder v EUIPO — RDS Design (MONTANA)

(Case T-856/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark MONTANA - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion - Admission of evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 95(1) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 278/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG (Delbrück, Germany) (represented by: L. Pechan and N. Fangmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: RDS Design ApS (Allerød, Denmark) (represented by: J. Viinberg, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 October 2019 (Case R 2394/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Franz Schröder and RDS Design.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

| 3. | Orders RDS Design ApS to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders RDS Design ApS to bear its own costs;

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Tsakos Energy Navigation Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for
the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nikolas P. Tsakos, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Nikolas P. TsakosNikolas P. TsakosPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: May 9, 2008
# C_2020027EN.01002701.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/27

---

Appeal brought on 26 November 2019 by the Czech Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2019 in Case T-629/17 Czech Republic v Commission

(Case C-862/19 P)

(2020/C 27/34)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, O. Serdula, I. Gavrilová, J. Vláčil, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-629/17; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-629/17;

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2017)4682; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2017)4682;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward one ground in support of the appeal, alleging infringement of Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18. (1)

It argues that the judgment under appeal must be set aside on the ground that the General Court erred in law in concluding that the exception contained in Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18 relates to public contracts for programme material only when the contracting authority is a broadcaster. It claims that it is nevertheless apparent from the wording, purpose, scheme and legislative history of the provision concerned that the exception in question must also be applied in the situation where the broadcaster is a contracting party in the position of a provider of programme material, as was the case with the contract at issue in the Czech Republic.

Having regard to the fact that the financial correction implemented by Commission Decision C(2017) 4682 was founded exclusively on the fact that the contracting authority for the contract at issue was not a broadcaster, that decision must be annulled in addition to the judgment under appeal of the General Court being set aside.

---

(1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.

---
#### BETTS, Appellant, v. ABRAHAMS et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Action by Hiram W. Betts, as administrator, etc., of Emma J. Betts, deceased, against Abraham Abrahams and others.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 59 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 59

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and an 
              adjournment of the House of Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 2, 2012

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
       concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and an 
              adjournment of the House of Representatives.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Thursday, 
August 2, 2012, through Tuesday, August 7, 2012, on a motion offered 
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his 
designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on Monday, 
September 10, 2012, or such other time on that day as may be specified 
by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or 
adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of 
this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the 
House adjourns on any legislative day from Thursday, August 2, 2012, 
through Tuesday, August 7, 2012, on a motion offered pursuant to this 
concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 
adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on Monday, September 10, 2012, or until the 
time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2.  The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House, or their respective designees, acting jointly after consultation 
with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority Leader of the 
House, shall notify the Members of the Senate and House, respectively, 
to reassemble at such place and time as they may designate if, in their 
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
                                 <all>
```
#### Kristian A. Miller, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, Susan S. Miller, et al., Respondents, v Andrew F. Miller, Appellant.

—In an automobile negligence action, defendant appeals, on the ground of excessiveness, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Rubenfeld, J.), entered November 19, 1984, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the infant plaintiff in the principal sum of $50,000.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

The jury’s assessment of the infant plaintiff’s damages is not shocking to the conscience of the court. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**
**Certification of Periodic Report**
     Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officerof Renaissance Learning, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the undersigned’sknowledge:
 (1)  the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Dated: May 10, 2005                                                     /s/ John R. Hickey   Name:  John R. Hickey   Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer   
THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT ACCOMPANIES THIS REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE FILED BY THE COMPANY FOR PURPOSES OF THE SECURITIESEXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.